Advance Pipeline Phase

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation and transition occur, and the lgtm condition, but omits important behavioral details such as what happens on validation failure, reversibility, or permission requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core action and follow with a conditional nuance. Every word contributes meaning, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple phase advancement tool, the description covers the key functionality and a notable conditional. However, it lacks explanation of what constitutes the 'current phase,' required files, or return behavior, leaving some gaps for new users. Still adequate for familiar users.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conditional requirement for the 'lgtm' parameter, which is not fully captured in the schema description alone. Other parameters are sufficiently documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates required files and transitions the state machine, with a specific condition about lgtm. It effectively distinguishes this phase-advancement tool from its many siblings (e.g., sdd_checkpoint, sdd_implement) by naming the exact action and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (when you want to advance a phase) but does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Given the large sibling list, explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others would improve clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.